RECORD OF DECISION 

CHICAGO - ST. LOUIS HIGH-SPEED RAIL PROJECT 

FHWA-IL-EIS-99-01 

I. DECISION 

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and Illinois 

Department of Transportation (IDOT) have completed the environmental review process for the Chicago -

St. Louis High-Speed Rail (HSR) Project, as mandated by the National Environmental Policy Act and 

related laws and regulations, and have selected the Preferred Alternative as described in the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for implementation in this comdor. The Preferred Alternative 

uses the current Chicago - St. Louis Amtrak route and involves high-speed rail service consisting of three 

round trips per day, with estimated one-way end-to-end travel times between four hours and four hours and 

30 minutes. HSR trains will stop at all of the stations currently served by the existing Chicago - St. Louis 

Amtrak route (i.e., Chicago Union Station, Summit, Joliet, Dwight, Pontiac, Bloomington/Normal, 

Lincoln, Springfield, Carlinville, Alton, and St. Louis). South of Dwight, maximum operating speed will 

be 110 mph (177 kph). North of Dwight, the existing maximum operating speed of 79 mph (127 kph) will 

be maintained. No physical improvements and no changes in operating characteristics (i.e., number and 

speed of trains) will be made north of Dwight. IDOT will carry out the HSR Project and will make 

improvements as funding becomes available. The three Agencies have selected this Alternative because it: 

best satisfies Purpose and Need and poses the least impacts to the natural and human environment, and can 

be accomplished with available or likely to become available funding resources. This decision is based 

upon full consideration of information contained in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) 

approved by the FHWA, FRA and the DOT in May 2000, public hearings held in JulyIAugust 2000, the 

Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) approved by the FHWA, FRA and IDOT in January 2003, 

public and agency comments pertaining to the proposed action, the other alternatives considered, the 

respective environmental consequences, and issues related to the proposed action. 

Approval of the Project by the FHWA and FRA involves limited Federal actions at this time. Operations 

at speeds of 110 mph (127 kph) will be made possible by the completion of the North American Joint 

Positive Train Control Program (NAJPTC), a demonstration project jointly funded by the Association of 

American Railroads (AAR), IDOT and the FRA. This program is installing a system to support revenueservice high-speed operations and to demonstrate flexible-block operation using movement authority 

commands. These commands will be radioed to each train on a 123-mile track segment of Union Pacific 

Railroad's Chicago - St. Louis Comdor and will establish industry-wide standards for control system 

interoperability. The FRA has provided approximately $39 million through fiscal year 2002 for this 

demonstration project. Total project cost to date is estimated at $80 million. The selected alternative 

supports the implementation of the NAJPTC for revenue service. DOT envisions possible future Federal 

financial support for other aspects of implementing the Selected Alternative, however, no existing Federal 

grant program funds general capital investments in high-speed rail development. However, a number of 

proposals are pending in Congress to create such a program. 

Chicago - St. Loiris High-Speed Rail Project 

Record of Decision 1 
Existing track will be utilized for the proposed action throughout the project area. However, provision of 

HSR service will require construction of 20 kilometers (12 miles) of double track; 35 kilometers (22 miles) 

of freight siding; and one grade-separated highway-railroad grade crossing; and installation of enhanced 

warning devices at 174 grade crossings. 

The primary purpose of this proposal is to enhance the passenger transportation network in the Chicago - St. Louis corridor, resulting in a more balanced use of its components. The existing network consists of 

highway (automobile and bus), air and rail (Amtrak) travel. Currently, 99 percent of the 35 million trips 

made annually in the Chicago - St. Louis corridor are accomplished through automobile and air travel. This 

proposal is intended to lead to a more balanced use of the network by diverting trips made by automobile 

and air. A more balanced use of the network will also provide benefits to the human environment over the 

existing network use. 

The proposed action is described in greater detail in Section 3.2 of the Final EIS. The Final EIS is 

available for review at the Illinois Department of Transportation Office in Springfield. 

11. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 

Alternatives Selected for Evaluation in the EIS: Two alternatives were evaluated in the EIS: 1) the NoBuild Alternative; and 2) the Build (High-Speed Rail) Alternative. (See Section 3.1 of the Final EIS for a 

full description of these alternatives). 

No-Build Alternative: The No-Build Alternative consisted of the existing plus committed 

improvements to the existing intercity passenger rail system and the complementary intercity highway 

and aviation services and facilities in the Chicago - St. Louis corridor. As part of this alternative 

existing Amtrak service would be maintained. Passenger service would operate on the current Chicago 

- St. Louis Amtrak route between Union Station in Chicago and the Amtrak Station in St. Louis. 

Service between Chicago and St. Louis would consist of three daily round trips with scheduled oneway trip times of between five hours and 25 minutes and five hours and 40 minutes. No changes in 

station stops, equipment, or grade crossing treatments would occur with this alternative. Additionally, 

only regular maintenance and rehabilitation would occur in the project area. 

The No-Build Alternative will not meet the purpose and need of the project because it will not enhance 

the passenger transportation network in the Chicago - St. Louis corridor. To achieve this, a new or 

improved transportation mode must be introduced with shorter travel times and enhanced reliability 

and safety. The No-Build Alternative would be a continuation of existing Amtrak service and would 

not provide any operational or service improvements. Without reductions in travel time or 

improvements to reliability and safety, the viability of rail passenger service as an alternative to air and 

automobile travel would not increase, and subsequently, travelers would not divert from those two 

modes. Therefore, the No-Build Alternative was not considered an adequate solution to meet the 

existing and anticipated transportation needs of the corridor. 

Build (High-speed Rail) Alternative: The High-Speed Rail Alternative was evaluated in the EIS as 

an alternative to current Amtrak service that would address the existing rail passenger service problems 

in the corridor and that would serve as a more viable alternative to intercity automobile, air, and bus 

travel between Chicago and St. Louis. This alternative would help provide a more balanced use of the 

passenger transportation network in the corridor, resulting in benefits to the human environment. 

These benefits to the human environment include reductions in pollutant emissions and energy 

consumption associated with intercity travel in the Chicago - St. Louis HSR corridor. 

Chicago - St. Lollis Higlt-Speed Rail Project 

Record of Decision 2 
The HSR Alternative evaluated in the Draft EIS consisted of provision of passenger service between 

Chicago and St. Louis, operating at top speeds of 110 mph (177 kph) through most of the project area, 

except for a 29-kilometer (18-mile) segment between Lincoln and Springfield where 125 mph (200 

kph) was considered. Service levels consisted of eight round trips per day, with one-way end-to-end 

travel times of approximately 3.5 hours.Between Chicago and Dwight, three alternative alignments 

were evaluated in the Draft EIS. One of the alignments -the Canadian National-Illinois 

Centralmnion Pacific -is the current Amtrak route. Another would utilize Canadian National-Illinois 

Central mainline and Norfolk Southern (formerly Conrail) track via Kankakee to provide a better route 

of entry into Chicago and would provide access to the proposed South Suburban Airport site in 

Peotone. This alignment is referred to as the Norfolk Southern alignment. The third alignment, 

referred to as the Rock Island District alignment, would utilize Metra Rock Island District track 

between Chicago and Joliet and Union Pacific track between Joliet and Dwight. South of Dwight, one 

alternative alignment -matching the existing Amtrak route -was evaluated. As part of the High-Speed 

Rail Alternative, double track and freight siding, grade crossing treatment, station, and equipment 

improvementswere also evaluated. 

Selected Alternative: The Agencies have concluded that implementation of high-speed rail service will 

meet the purpose and need defined for this project. This fact, coupled with the consideration of public and 

resource agency comments, led to the determination that the overall benefits of providing HSR service 

outweigh the potential environmental impacts and that HSR service should be provided in the Chicago - St. Louis corridor to the extent practicable. 

The Selected Alternative as described in Section I and based upon the Preferred Alternative included in the 

FEIS consists of provision of high-speed rail passenger service with a maximum operating speed of 110 

mph (177 kph) in certain portions of the corridor. However, between Chicago and Dwight, the existing 

maximum operating speed of 79 mph (127 kph) will be maintained and no physical improvements will be 

made north of Dwight.. Although three alignments were considered between Chicago and Dwight, IDOT 

does not wish to select a new alignment at this time. Currently, there are several other projects being 

considered between Chicago and Dwight that could influence the selection of an alternative alignment. 

Some of these projects include: 

the South Suburban Airport near Peotone; 

the reinstitution of the Grand Crossing, which would provide the Norfolk Southern alignment 

access to Union Station; and 

the switching of Southwest Metra service to Rock Island District track near 79th Street. 

Final decisions on how these projects will proceed have not been made. Therefore, IDOT decided that 

selection of an alternative alignment between Chicago and Dwight would not be prudent at this time. In 

the interim, the current Amtrak route will be used north of Dwight. 

For the Selected Project, service will consist of three round trips per day, matching existing Amtrak 

service. Ultimately, a "full-build" HSR Alternative in the Chicago - St. Louis corridor could consist of 

eight round trips per day. However, prior to expanding service beyond three round trips per day, it will be 

necessary to select a final alternative alignment between Chicago and Dwight. As part of this selection and 

service enhancement, supplemental environmental and operational reviews will have to be conducted. 

Additional coordination with the other freight and passenger operators in the corridor will also be 

undertaken. 

Clticago - St. Louis High-speed Rail Project 

Record of Decision 3 
The HSR Alternative evaluated in the Draft EIS assumed greater investment in infrastructure and more 

trains than is now contemplated with the Selected Alternative. Even though the improvements associated 

with provision of HSR service have been reduced from those presented in the Draft EIS, the Selected 

Alternative will address the three needs identified for this project. A summary of the effectiveness of the 

Selected Alternative at meeting the purpose and need is provided below. 

Redrrced Travel Time and Improved Service Reliability: Rail passenger travel time between Chicago 

and St. Louis will decrease to between four hours and four hours and 30 minutes. Rail communication 

and signal systems will be upgraded, improving reliability and on-time performance. 

Safety: Overall passenger safety in the corridor will increase as travelers divert from automobile to rail 

since rail is a safer mode of travel. 

Hiinrarr Envirorrment: Volatile organic compound, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen oxide emissions 

from passenger transportation sources in the corridor will be reduced. Total annual energy 

consumption for all passenger travel in the corridor will also be lower. 

111. SECTION 4(f) 

The Selected Alternative will not impact any publicly owned land from a park, recreation area, 

wildlife/waterfowl refuge, or historic site of national, state, or local significance. 

IV. MEASURES TO MINIMIZE HARM 

All practical measures to minimize the potential environmental impacts caused by the Selected Alternative 

will be taken by IDOT in implementing the Selected Alterative. The mitigation measures proposed for this 

project are summarized in Section S.4 and described in detail in Section 5 of the Final EIS. During final 

design, efforts will be made to avoid or minimize the impacts of this project to the extent reasonable. In 

areas where impacts are unavoidable, best management practices (BMP) will be incorporated into the 

design. General construction mitigation measures will include the continuation of public utility service; 

minimization of existing vegetation removal; control of the disposal of surplus or unsuitable material; 

minimization of construction noise, vibration impacts, and air pollution; and the control of erosion and 

sedimentation during construction. 

Social/Economic: The Selected Alternative will require the acquisition of 0.2 hectares (0.4 acres) of 

commercial property at Pontoon Road (MP 272.70), where a grade separation is proposed. This 

improvement will also result in the displacement of one commercial outbuilding. Just compensation will 

be provided for the property acquisition that will be required. 

Twenty-four grade crossings along the Selected Alternative are proposed for closure. Fourteen of these 

crossings serve pedestrian traffic only. In all instances where crossing closures are proposed, adequate 

reserve capacity exists on the adjacent crossings to handle the diverted traffic. No crossings will be closed 

without the consent of the local community or the property owner involved. 

IDOT will contact each community in the Chicago - St. Louis High-Speed Rail corridor south of Dwight to 

discuss the possibility of fencing along the railroad tracks. If a community is interested in having fencing 

installed, IDOT will coordinate with that community to determine the location, style, and height of the 

Cfticago- St. Loiiis High-Speed Rail Project 

Record of Decision 4 
proposed fencing as well as whether the fencing will be on one or both sides of the railroad tracks. If an 

agreement can be reached, fencing will be installed. Fencing will not be installed unless agreed to by the 

local community. 

Water Resources: Short-term impacts to water quality and aquatic biota could occur with the Selected 

Alternative. Twenty-eight streams and small tributaries could be affected. To minimize potential impact, 

erosion, sedimentation and bank stabilization measures will be employed, consistent with IDOT7s Bureau 

of Design and Environment Manual. 

Wetlands: The FHWA, FRA and IDOT have determined that there is no practical alternative to the 

construction of the Selected Alternative in wetlands and that all practical measures to minimize impacts to 

wetlands will be taken. The Selected Alternative will require the loss of 0.36 hectares (0.89 acres) of 

wetland. Wetland impacts will be mitigated through a wetland mitigation plan approved by the Illinois 

Department of Natural Resources. Compensation for wetland impacts will be provided through the 

purchase of credits in an approved wetland mitigation bank. Coordination will be conducted with the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers in conjunction with the Section 404 Permit of this project to determine the 

availability of suitable wetland banks. 

If an approved wetland bank is not available at the time of permitting, wetland impact mitigation will be 

provided through the conversion of non-wetland areas into wetlands. The actual acreage of created 

wetland required for mitigation will vary depending on where the mitigation is constructed relative to the 

wetlands impacted and will range from 0.57 hectares (1.41 acres) to 0.73 hectares (1.79 acres). Design 

and implementation will be conducted in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service and the Illinois Department of Natural Resources. 

Monitoring will occur for all wetland compensation areas of 0.10 hectares (0.25 acres) or greater. 

Monitoring will be performed according to IDOT7s Wetlands Action Plan and any conditions stipulated by 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Greater details on the monitoring program will be developed as part of 

the conceptual wetland mitigation plan. 

Natural Resources: The Selected Alternative will require the loss of 34 hectares (85 acres) of upland 

vegetation. Seventy-four percent of this will be agricultural land, pasture, developed land or forbland. 

Restoring and enhancing environmental quality is proposed for all impact areas. All disturbed areas not 

occupied by project facilities will be immediately revegetated and mulched to stabilize disturbed soils, 

minimize erosion, and enhance the productivity and aesthetics. 

The Selected Alternative will require the loss of 0.25 hectares (0.61 acres) of native vegetation. 

Unavoidable impacts to native communities will be mitigated through a prairie mitigation plan. Unless a 

higher ratio is required due to presence of high quality wetland flora, etc., compensation for direct adverse 

impacts (temporary and permanent) to prairies of grade C+ and higher will occur at a 1:l ratio. Further, 

compensation will occur in-kind (i.e., wet prairie for wet prairie, mesic prairie, sand prairie, dolomitic 

prairie, etc.). 

Monitoring will occur for each created or .enhanced prairie area of 0.10 hectares (0.25 acres) in size or 

greater. Monitoring will involve photographic documentation from the same vantage point each year for a 

three-year period or until 80 percent ground cover by native, perennial prairie plants is achieved 

(whichever is later). Monitoring will be done by the Illinois Natural History Survey for IDOT, and the 

annual report will be coordinated and reviewed with the IDNR. 

Clticago - St. Loiiis HigIz-Speed Rail Project 

Record of Decision 5 
Management practices for prairie areas will focus on prescribed burn management and removal of invasive 

plants. Annual monitoring and long-term maintenance will identi@ whether removal of invasive plants 

will be performed by manual or chemical methods. The decision will be based on the growth 

characteristics of the species targeted for removal and the extent of invasion. 

For long-term management, interagency agreements will be required to establish cooperative management 

for each created, preserved, and enhanced prairie. These agreements will allow access to and management 

of the existing C+ and higher prairie areas within the railroad right-of-way as well as lower grade prairies 

being managed to improve vegetative quality by DOT, IDNR, or their designated representative. 

No threatened or endangered species were found during field surveys of the project area of the Selected 

Alternative. Therefore, no impacts to threatened or endangered species are anticipated. Coordination has 

been conducted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Illinois Department of Natural Resources 

regarding the potential for the project to affect Federal or state threatened or endangered species. This 

coordination and consultation will continue as appropriate in order to assure that appropriate mitigation 

measures are incorporated into the project so that impacts to protected plant and animal species are 

minimized or avoided. 

Floodplains: One construction project associated with the Selected Alternative would occur in areas 

where 100-year floodplains have been identified. However, no work should be performed below the 100- 

year flood elevation, and as a result, this improvement will not encroach upon the base floodplain. 

Therefore, there will be no impacts to floodplains. 

Special Waste: No CERCLIS sites will be involved or impacted by this project. Preliminary 

Environmental Site Assessments (PESAs) for special waste were conducted by DOT, Bureau of 

Railroads. The assessments concluded that the Selected Alternative could involve other special waste 

sites. Further investigations should be conducted to determine risks and liabilities of the involvement prior 

to land acquisition. 

Permits: Section 404 permits will be needed from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for wetlands where 

filling occurs. In addition, a Section 401 water quality certification will have to be obtained from the 

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency.Permits from the Illinois Department of Natural Resources, 

Office of Water Resources, will be required for construction activity in and around streams and 

floodplains. 

It is anticipated that this project will result in the disturbance of 0.4 or more hectares (one or more acres) of 

total land area. Therefore, it will be subject to the requirement of a National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NF'DES) permit for stormwater discharges from construction sites. Permit coverage 

for the project will be obtained either under the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency General Permit 

for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Site Activities (NF'DES Permit No. ILR10) or under an 

individual NPDES permit. 

To control local air pollution impacts, a permit may be required for portable bituminous and concrete 

plants used in project construction. 

V. MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM 

Cl~icago- St. Lollis High-speed Rail Project 

Record of Decisiort 6 
Monitoring and enforcement of the project commitments and impact minimization/mitigation measures 

will be accomplished by IDOT through standard procedures to assure compliance. Specifically, IDOT will 

provide those individuals responsible for preparing the construction plans and those overseeing and 

monitoring their work with a copy of this Record of Decision, the Draft EIS, and the Final EIS to assure 

that required environmental avoidance and mitigation measures are included in the plans and specifications 

prepared for the project. The Resident Engineers overseeing the construction of the project will also 

receive a copy of these documents and will be responsible for assuring that all commitments are met. 

DOT will regularly monitor the compliance efforts of these project participants and will report any 

deficiencies (and its efforts to enforce the project commitments with respect to such deficiencies) without 

delay to the FRA and FHWA. 

VI. COMMENTS ON THE FINAL EIS 

The Notice of Availability of the Final EIS was published in the Federal Register on January 3 1, 2003. 

The notice specified March 10, 2003 as the end of the wait period. By written request, this period was 

extended to April 15,2003 for Kankakee County. 

The following is a summary of the comments received on the Final EIS. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service: In a letter dated 

February 25, 2003, the U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service stated 

that they completed the Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form AD-1006 on this project in May 

2000 and had no further comment. 

Response to Comment: No response is required. A copy of the Impact Rating Form is provided 

in Appendix C (p. C-28) of the Final EIS. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: In a letter dated February 21,2003, the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) stated that they had no significant environmental concerns with the proposed 

action. After reviewing the Draft EIS, the U.S. EPA had raised objections to two of the three 

alternative alignments considered north of Dwight. However, since the Selected Alternative consists 

of no action north of Dwight, the issues raised in their previous objections are no longer applicable. 

Resaolzse to Comment: No response is required. 

Illinois Department of Natural Resources: In an e-mail communication dated February 28, 2003, 

the Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) raised concerns about potential impacts to 

Timber Creek (near Funks Grove in McLean County) and Kickapoo Creek (in Logan County). Timber 

Creek was adopted as an INAI stream in January 2002, and it is likely that Kickapoo Creek will 

become an INAI stream as well. 

The IDNR also stated that in terms of wetland impacts, all of the information required by the 

Interagency Wetlands Policy Act was provided. They concurred with the proposed mitigation ratios 

and the recommendation that compensation for wetland impacts be provided through the purchase of 

credits in an approved wetland mitigation bank. 

Cl~icago- St. Lollis High-speed Rail Project 

Record of Decision 7 
Response to Comment: As part of the Selected Alternative, no impacts were identified at either 

Timber Creek (MP 136.55) or Kickapoo Creek (MP 149.50) because they are located outside of 

the proposed construction areas. 

Illinois Environmental Protection A~encv: In a letter dated March 3, 2003, the Illinois 

Environmental Protection Agency stated that they had no objections to the project. They also noted 

that a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction Permit would be 

required for the project and Section 401 water quality certification would be required for any permit 

required by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. 

Response to Comment: The need for the NPDES Permit and the water quality certification was 

identified in the Final EIS @. S-10) and is reiterated in this Record of Decision. 

Citv of Kankakee: In a letter dated March 7, 2003, the City of Kankakee wrote in support of the 

Norfolk Southern alignment between Chicago and Dwight. Reasons for their support of this alignment 

included: 

It has no formal opposition. 

It would serve an area underserved today. 

It is safer because there are fewer grade crossings. 

It would provide access to the proposed airport in Peotone. 

It is the least expensive. 

Accompanying the City's letter was additional correspondence in support of the Norfolk Southern 

alignment ffom the Village of Beecher, the Village of New Lenox, the South Suburban Mayors and 

Managers Association, and Congressman Jessie Jackson, Jr. 

Response to Comment: As noted in the Final EIS, an alignment between Chicago and Dwight has 

not been selected. Under the Selected Alternative, the current Amtrak route -through Joliet -will 

be used. Passenger service would consist of three round trips per day (matching existing 

conditions). Maximum operating speed will remain unchanged between Chicago and Dwight and 

will increase to 110 mph (177 kph) between Dwight and St. Louis. Ultimately, a "full-build" HSR 

Alternative could consist of eight round trips per day. Prior to expanding service beyond three 

rounds trips per day, it will be necessary to select a final alternative alignment between Chicago 

and Dwight. As part of that selection process and service enhancement, supplemental 

environmental and operational reviews will be conducted. The Norfolk Southern alignment 

remains a viable alternative between Chicago and Dwight and will be considered further prior to 

selection of a final alternative alignment through that area. 

As a matter of clarification, preliminary cost estimates developed for the Draft EIS indicated that 

the Norfolk Southern alignment would cost the most of the three alternative alignments 

considered. 

Kankakee Countv: In a letter dated April 8,2003, Kankakee County wrote in support of the Norfolk 

Southern alignment between Chicago and Dwight. 

Response to Comment: As noted above, an alignment between Chicago and Dwight has not been 

selected. Prior to expanding service beyond three rounds trips per day, it will be necessary to select 

Clzicago - St. Louis Higlr-Speed Rail Project 

Record of Decision 8 
a final alternative alignment between Chicago and Dwight. As part of that selection process and 

service enhancement, supplemental environmental and operational reviews will be conducted. The 

Norfolk Southern alignment remains a viable alternative between Chicago and Dwight and will be 

considered further prior to selection of a final alternative alignment through that area. 

City of Granite City: In a letter dated March 5, 2003, the City of Granite City, citing public safety 

concerns, recommended that the grade crossings at 25' Street, 20' Street, and Neidringhaus Avenue 

be equipped with four quadrant gates. 

Resporrse to Comment: The identified crossings are currently equipped with conventional two 

quadrant gates. The Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC) has requested that all public grade 

crossings where speeds will exceed 90 mph (145 kph) be equipped with four quadrant gates. It is 

estimated that the maximum operating speed at these three crossings in Granite City will be 60 

mph (97 kph) which is well below the 90 mph requested by the ICC as the threshold for providing 

four quadrant gates. For this reason, no changes to the existing grade crossing treatment devices 

are recommended. 

Illinois Farm Bureau: In a letter dated February 28, 2003, the Illinois Farm Bureau stated that with 

the exception for the potential added difficulty in negotiating gated crossings with large farm 

equipment, the Preferred Alternative appears to pose little environmental impact to agriculture and 

generally satisfiesthe three key policies of their organization regarding the High-Speed Rail Project. 

Response to Cornnrerrt: Prior to the installation of gates at private crossings, coordinationwith the 

crossing owners will take place to address their concerns to the extent practicable. 

Main Street Lockport: In a letter dated February 27, 2003, Main Street Lockport, a non-profit 

organization that supports revitalization and restoration, expressed concerns regarding high-speed rail 

passenger service through Lockport. Their concerns consisted of the following: 

impacts to the leafy prairie clover found in Big Run Seep; 

impacts to cultural resources; 

public safety; and 

noise. 

Response to Comment: As part of the Selected Alternative, no action is proposed through 

Lockport. Trains will continue to operate at existing speeds, and no new trains will be added. 

Additionally, no construction is proposed through this area. Therefore, this project will not result 

in any direct impacts in the Lockport area. 

As noted above, an alignment between Chicago and Dwight has not been selected. Prior to 

expanding service beyond three rounds trips per day, it will be necessary to select a final 

alternative alignment between Chicago and Dwight. As part of that selection process and service 

enhancement, supplemental environmental and operational reviews will be conducted. The 

concerns raised by Main Street Lockport, including speed limits, will be reviewed at that time. 

Additional Public Comment: A few comments were received that provided general support or 

disapproval of the proposed action. One comment came from a couple who stated that high-speed rail 

service would have a negative impact on their community (Godfrey) and questioned whether the 

Chicago - St. Louis Higlz-SpeedRail Project 

Record of Decisio~r 9 
existing track could handle high-speed trains. Additional communication fiom the public included 

requests for the Final EIS and clarification on specific grade crossing treatments. 

Resporzse to Comment: As documented in the Final EIS, potential negative community impacts 

are minimal. Less than one acre of right-of-way and one displacement is required for the Selected 

Alternative. Additionally, no noise, vibration, or air quality impacts were identified. 

As necessary, track maintenance and improvements will be made so that high-speed trains can 

operate safely. 

VII. CONCLUSION 

The FHWA, FRA and IDOT have reached their decision based upon information and analysis contained in 

the FEIS and outlined in this document. The decision concludes that the Selected Alternative, the Build 

(High-Speed Rail) Alternative, as described in this document: 1) best satisfies Purpose and Need, 2) poses 

the least impacts to the natural and human environment, 3) has been selected based on processes in 

compliance with NEPA and other applicable requirements, and 4) may be advanced. 

DEC 2 3 2CO2 

Date f~ailroadAdministration 

Chicago - St. Lorris High-speed Rail Project 

Record of Decisiorr 10